Loading...
PC 06-28-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED MINUTES JUNE 28, 2004 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY The Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2004 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati, and the following proceedings were had to wit: SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Lisa Giefer Marty Miller Angela Chen Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Senior Planner: Assistant City Attorney: Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Peter Gilli Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes a/the May 24, 2004 Planning Commission meeting: Chair Saadati: Page 9: 3'd bullet, second line: change "more for" to read "for" Com. Giefer: Page 9: middle of page, "Com. Giefer", change "pervious" to "impervious" Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Giefer, to approve the May 24, 2004 minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0) Minutes of the June 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting: Com. Miller: Page 13, 4th line: Delete "do not" Com. Giefer: Page 2, 4th bullet under Com. Giefer; 2"d line: change "net calculation" to "net FAR calculation" Page 7, change reference to "Bob McClellan" to "Bubb McClellan" in 3 paragraphs. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve the June 14, 2004 minutes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-1; Chair Saadati abstained) Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 28, 2004 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: 4. Consider hillside zoning designation for property at 21949 Lindy Lane. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director: . Explained that the property owner needed more time to digest the facts relating to why the application is coming forward and requested a two week continuance. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Wong, to continue Item 4 to the July 12,2004 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 1. TM-2004-04, M-2004-03 EA-2004-06 Deke Hunter 20410 Rodriguez Ave., 20366-20370 Torre Ave., 10440 DeAnza Boulevard. Tentative map to vest an approved tentative map (TM-2002-02) and to create office condo- miniums in an existing office building on Lot 5 (Civic Park development). Modification to allow the conversion of an existing two-story office building into office condominiums. Tentative City Council date: July 6, 2004 Vice Chair Wong recused himself from discussion of the application as his family owns property on Sequoia Avenue. Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: Noted a change that staff and applicant are requesting that the Planning Commission ignore all references to a vesting map in this application; the item in question is the conversion of an office building into a condo office building and the modification of a use permit to allow that conversion. Applicant is requesting to split up a two story office building into 20 suites to be sold to individual owners. The Planning Commission reviewed the Rl townhouses at the last meeting; the design of the park, Buildings G & R are under construction. Staff is generally not supportive of splitting an older office building into multiple ownerships; because the ownership is ti-agmented and it is not likely that the project will change beyond what it is at this point in time. Relative to the issue of precedent, there are other property owners in the city who have requested in the past an opportunity to subdivide an older office building and staff's position has been that it is not recommended. . Staff recommends approval of the negative declaration since there is no environmental impact. Reviewed two options: (I) deny applicant's request; and (2) approve it based on the new model resolution and with the model resolution of the use permit amendment with the conditions that the property be upgraded. Deke Hunter, Managing Member of Cupertino Town Center: Reviewed the history of the application. Planning Commission Minutes 1 June 1ß, 1ßß4 . Explained that if the building was not changed to a condominium, he would sell the building; already sold the two front buildings because it is not part ofthe long term redevelopment plan. The project is to meet the demand of the existing tenants. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment; no one was present who wished to speak. Com. Miller: Said he would like to understand it better, but felt that having ownership by the people using the building is not necessarily a negative thing as they have a direct interest in making sure the building is maintained in an appropriate manner. . Did not feel that multiple owners would necessarily degrade the normal operational maintenance ofthe building. Mr. Piasecki: Any site should be a contributor to the overall master plan, although this hasn't been planned in yet, there was some discussion about possible other uses on this property, such as a hotel. . From a public agency policy standpoint, it needs to be assessed whether the project is the potential contributor and whether over the long run, 40 or 50 years, will there be an opportunity for this building to be redeveloped in a manner and in a design style compatible with the new buildings planned in the Town Center. Staff feels that with allowing the subdivision into 20 separate ownerships, it is going to be very hard for those owners to come together and say let's tear the building down and sell it or redevelop it in a manner that is in keeping with the now-modern mixed use buildings that are across from us. Staff does not feel it is good public policy to set a precedent where you take an older building and allow it to be subdivided; it comes down to the view of this building's contribution over the long term; if it can stay that way and there is no concern about setting that precedent, the applicant's argument could be supported. If it were done, staff suggests a condition that requires the applicant come back with upgrades because we are not as concerned about building G which is under construction, and is steel and concrete and is going to be there for a hundred years; it is part ofthe master plan, it is planned in very well. I would be concerned if another builder across town comes and says you allowed this site to be subdivided, we want to subdivide too, and soon you are ti-ozen in 1975 or 1980, and ti-ozen much of your community from redeveloping. The concept of doctors owning their own space and contributing in that long term, is a good concept; but long term redevelopability is what it comes down to. Com. Miller: To follow that further; obviously at the end of its useful life, it is going to be redeveloped no matter who owns the building; at some time it is going to cost more to maintain it than to tear it down and put something else up there, and when that point in time comes, what you are saying is that point in time will be delayed because there are too many people to make a decision. Eventually it will have to be redeveloped, but by having multiple owners, is it being suggested that the point in time will be delayed; and if we didn't do that, it might get redeveloped sooner. Mr. Piasecki: . In single ownership, even a board of directors and president can make that decision a lot easier than 20 individual, independent smaller owners. Planning Commission Minutes 4 June ~g, ~OO4 It may be fine to leave the building as is, collect rent; so that will be much more difficult to see that happen and to get agreement from more than half of them to take it down; it is difficult to imagine how that would work. Deke Hunter: Said he took exception that it is the building and not the occupants that make the contribution; in this case, he said he felt it was the occupants. Said that when referring to contributors to the community, he felt the medical professionals were at the top of the line. These buildings, whether there is a homeowners association or an LLC, have a board of directors and a president, there is a set of ordinances or directions within their commercial building owners association that deals with maintenance and redevelopment. There is a structure that allows those buildings to go onto their useful life whether that is 40 or 60 years down the road. Chair Saadati: . Expressed concern that unless there are some conditions, in the future the tenants collectively upgrade the building to blend in with the rest; that may not happen for 20 years or 30 years and the building could last another 30 years. Said he felt eventually the exterior needs to be upgraded to a more durable material; also would blend in with the rest of the buildings that are going to be built. Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, to approve staff's recommendation to deny the use permit, and to approve the negative declaration. Com. Chen: Commented that she could see the difficulty of negotiating with 20 tenants to improve the look of the building, so the building can better fit into the environment. . Said she felt it was easier to deal with one owner and have the owner deal with the 20 tenants or have the owner front the money to do the redevelopment work and to provide a better looking and more functional building to the community. . Said she was concerned about setting precedents, while all these use permits are reviewed on a case by case basis, most people don't see it that way. We will still continue to review the use permit based on the different situations but if we approve this case, and it will be used to put us in a position to review a lot more cases for very little benefit to the city and community. Said that was the reason she followed staff's recommendation to deny the use permit. Second: Com. Giefer (stated that Com. Chen did a good job expressing concerns she shared). Com. Miller: Said he was sensitive to having multiple owners who work in the building, but shared the same concerns about the precedent and would not be willing to vote for it without further study. Vote: 4-0-0 (Vice Chair Wong recused). Mr. Piasecki noted that the item will go forward to the City Council on July 6, 2004. Vice Chair Wong returned to the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 2R, 2004 2. U-2004-07, EXC-2004-05, ASA-2004-10 Danny Lee 10078 Santa Clara Ave. Use permit to allow two 2,120 square foot two story single-family residences in a planned development zoning district. Parking exceptions for two new single-family residences to allow one car garages and one driveway apron space per unit and parking on semi-pervious surfaces in a planned development zoning district. Architectural and site approval for two new two-story residences, each 2,120 square feet, in a planned development zoning district. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Peter GiIIi, presented the staff report: Application is request to build 2 new homes on an approximate 8,000 square foot parcel in the Monta Vista planning area. The project requires a use permit since it is in a planned development zone. . Reviewed the background ofthe project and illustrated the site plan. Reviewed the architectural design of the project as outlined in the staff report. Staff and the consulting architect support the design and detailing. Staff supports a parking exception for the project since the design would be compromised with a two car garage. The site will allow for onstreet parking for one car. Com. Miller: Said the lots were initially 2500 each; questioned the reason. Mr. GiIIi: Said they were subdivided before there were rules about how large lots had to be; the lots had to be a buildable size. Mr. Piasecki: . Provided a history of the lots; said they were subdivided most likely in the county before it was annexed into the city. Monta Vista neighborhood was a weekend getaway for people from the San Francisco area; small lots were deemed desirable when the area was originally subdivided. Com. Miller: Asked if they fell under the R I ordinance. Mr. GiIIi: No, the entire area that has the odd pattern is in a planned development. It was recognized when the area was annexed that it wouldn't meet RI; there are some duplexes out there. It was put into a planned development zone where if it meets RI, it proceeds with the Director's approval which is a minor modification; if not, it needs a use permit. Com. Miller: . Doing the math, the FAR is 55%, not 49%; under a planned unit, you can have any FAR. Asked if that was mostly the rules. Mr. GiIIi: . Yes Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 28, 2004 Com. Miller: . The other issue is the impervious coverage; in our last session we talked about reducing impervious coverage, and here we are in an impervious coverage of 55%; where does that fit within our guidelines for the city; what are the requirements, and are they within or exceeding the guideline and needing an exception. Mr. GiIIi: The parking ordinance has rules about a certain percentage of the front has to have a ratio of pervious to impervious; what is shown under pervious coverage, I don't know if that is accurate; because I also found out that the FAR is 40% but it didn't count the garage at the time; with the garage, the FAR is actually 55%, and because the driveway is going to be permeable, there is no reason why impervious amount is going to be that high. . The requirement for the maximum amount of impervious surface is that 50% of the front setback is able to be paved. They are within the guideline; part of it is because they are using the pavers on their driveway; the 55% is incorrect. Com. Miller: It is a moot issue; if you look at the surrounding area, it seems like a majority of the houses are on larger lots; there is only a few of these scattered in. This development isn't in character with what else is going on in that neighborhood. Asked if it was not an issue ti-om staff's standpoint? Mr. GiIIi: The lots to the north when it started were about the same size property as the subject site; they put two houses on it; there may be a difference, but they are at least comparable. Part of the issue is the records do not have an accurate count of how many lots there are; only how many assessor parcels there are. . On the issue of whether or not it is compatible, we looked more at what the past approvals have been in the entire Monta Vista area and those have mostly been mixed use projects on Pasadena, Orange, Granada, those with the style of architecture similar to what the applicant is proposing. . If you look at the immediate area, it may be a fourplex, a duplex, it is difficult to make it compatible with that specific area; so we look more at the broader area. Vice Chair Wong: As a follow up to Com. Miller's comments, he asked what the average lot sizes were of the single family home parcels to the north, Said Com. Miller had a good point that a lot of them are single family homes even those in the planned development. Mr. GiIIi: Said he did not have the information; only that the lots immediately north are about the same size as the two lots would be. Yice Chair Wong: Asked if consideration was given, since the lot size is 7,700 square feet, of making it into a duplex or fourplex to accommodate the parking spaces. Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 2&, 2004 Mr. GiIIi: Said the applicant looked at the idea of three townhouses attached, that used the rear area for parking and such; they may have looked at a duplex, but in the end they chose this project. Mr. Piasecki: . New Orleans has the very narrow lots and they build shotgun houses; that is the alternative the applicant would come up with the 25 foot wide very narrow unattractive shotgun houses. Staff feels that reducing from three to two and building what is otherwise a conventional small lot single family will make a better contribution overall to this neighborhood, and in some of the newer developments along Peninsula, there are some newer kind of small lots, single family townhouses that are compatible with this style; and that over time perhaps some of the duplexes or triplexes will be changed to an ownership pattern and they can provide more consistency in this particular neighborhood. Staff feels it is a good design that the applicant has come up with. The properties to the north are on similar sized lots because they are on the corner and they have more property frontage on the street, they were able to accommodate two car garages as well; staff does not feel it is a good plan for this lot because it would be all garage, and are comfortable with the idea of having a single car garage leaving room along the street for onstreet parking. With a two car garage it would all be apron, and you would lose that onstreet parking space; resulting in gaining very little from having the two car garage in this case. . Staff feels it is well designed, ti-ont porches, and many things the older Monta Vista neighborhood entailed in some of the homes, and yet has some compromise on the parking issue. Because of Paul and Eddies and some of the overflow parking coming from the commercial, we have to take a look at this over time and look at other strategies to help minimize some of the on street parking but feel it is a good plan. Com. Giefer: Said that when she was in the area about 3 p.m. today, the street was packed, on the curb there was no parking in certain areas, and a neighbor said it was a light day of parking there. Said the plan is attractive, and ti-om a design perspective she is comfortable with the one car garage. One of the suggestions the resident made, was if this area was changed that abuts to Highway 85 and the sound wall, that is currently posted as No Parking; and there is only one duplex there; if it were changed to allow parking, it would alleviate some of the parking stress that they have on this street. Pointed out an apartment house with striped parking in front and parking spaces; it is a mixed bag. Said she was concerned about the parking on the street, and asked what would need to happen to change that to allow parking. Mr. Piasecki: It is an excellent suggestion and would help the neighborhood out. Staff would bring it to Public Works' attention and ask them why you couldn't park along there. Chair Saadati: Asked if tandem parking was considered. Mr. GiIIi: Yes, it had tandem in its design; it took out the first story bedroom and bathroom and had a tandem garage; the applicant was then left with a two bedroom house, with a two car garage and was more interested in seeing if it could work with a one car garage and three bedrooms. Planning Commission Minutes g June 2&, 2004 Mark Snow, applicant: Said that they looked at the project as staff did, and you can drive through the neighborhood many times and not see something that looks the same; there is a variety of apartments, duplexes, trailers, and single family homes. . The owner of the property could have looked at doing three units, with having three parcels, but the three unit townhouse concept left no yards. The property does not allow for a two car garage; it is a difficult lot. If doing a tandem garage, it wouldn't necessarily lose a bedroom; we could configure the third bedroom on the second floor in keeping with the percentages; to do a tandem, we could push the tandem back; what it would bring is the second garage within 5 or 10 feet from the rear property line and that leaves a yard of approximately 10 by 20 on the one side. . Said the third bedroom could fit on the second floor, but is not conducive because it is putting a bedroom on top of another single car garage. It is doable but highly unlikely the owners would want to do something of that nature. . Also, losing the third bedroom would reduce the home to 1,200 square feet. Vice Chair Wong: . Asked if consideration was given to putting a one car garage in the back to meet the parking requirement. Mr. Snow: . Said it is an issue of tradeoffs as to what you want to have or not have, and they were trying to preserve as much of the yard for the homeowners. The impervious could be increased and have a long driveway similar to a Willow Glen cottage style home; but it is not in keeping with the Monta Vista look. Mr. Snow: . Said the reason they did not go to three in a townhouse, was that the entire property across the front is barely 60 feet and gets down to about 40 in the back. When three units were put in there, we tried angling garages in different directions; there was literally nothing but building and were up around 70% FAR, just to meet the parking requirements for the three units. Vice Chair Wong: If you were to do a tandem one car garage and fit the third bedroom in, perhaps you would need more second story footage, because you are at 66%. Said he was not opposed to going higher so you could get the second car tandem and have three suitably-sized bedrooms upstairs. Mr. Snow: . Said he was not comfortable with the suggestion of stacking top on top to provide the additional one car parking. Vice Chair Wong: . Said it was a good point, you would end up having a smaller house if you were to do tandem parking because you would need 10 more feet to include the tandem parking and deleting that second bedroom downstairs. Mr. Snow: The impervious is somewhere around 38% to 40%; they took building footprint and driveway and included that as the impervious. Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 2&, 2004 Com. Giefer: The walls that will face one another toward the common property line; in the bedroom and bath, did you consider staggering windows to allow for greater light and airflow. The common sides that face the property line have no windows on the bottom floor and said that if they were staggered, they wouldn't be looking upon one another in the bedroom and would allow for greater light and air flow. Mr. Snow: There is not much side yard, a high window or something to provide some light could be done. Said he did not object to some high glass, perhaps fixed glass, strictly for light, but not certain if they would provide something that would provide a very low sill, even if it was staggered. They are only 6 feet apart on the first floor and 10 feet apart on the second, and are literally right at the fence line. Chair Saadati: Was a flag lot considered? Mr. Snow: Many things were considered; the problem is because the lot is only 75 deep, there is literally 35 to 40 feet of lot and then when you get to that back partial and you take a swatch for the driveway, the result is a 40 x 40 in order to get a building footprint on. The back one would probably be fine because you get the double width, although the backside of that property is only about 40 to 45 feet wide, so it is a tough site. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. Vice Chair Wong: Overall, the applicant did a good job regarding the design; biggest concern is regarding giving a parking exception especially since it is so close to retail. Com. Giefer noticed when talking to the other residents, that people do park in the neighborhood. . Com. Giefer's suggestion to open the Highway 85 side is a good idea, but it may open up other problems as well. There is no foyer when entering the house; a lot of things are being compacted into this house. Said the only way he could support the application is if the unit was smaller, add tandem parking which forces a smaller home. . Biggest concern is the ordinance that requires two parking; another exception that doesn't allow two cars parked on the driveway; and this is a mixed use neighborhood with single family homes, duplexes, fourplexes, six units across. Said it was difficult for him to provide the exception. Architecturally it is a good job. Com. Giefer: Applicant has done a good job of designing a well designed home in a very small space and providing a lot of open area around the homes. . Support the application provided that staff does pursue trying to open up parking along Highway 85 where there are less homes that would be impacted and also relieve the parking pressure on the street. Planning Commission Minutes 10 June 2&, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: The issue that Com. Giefer is raising is more of a broad neighborhood issue because of impacts from the commercial area; what we will ask Public Works to do is take a look at that parking along the freeway, and I don't know why you couldn't park out there; but secondly there are other alternatives to address that issue such as permit parking or limited parking, or there may be a number of strategies we could use to ensure that the parking spaces onstreet are available to the residents when they need them; principally evenings and weekends. We will look into it more comprehensively than just that one particular suggestion; we will report back to you what alternatives are available. . Staff feels that the applicant is in many ways making the situation better by reducing the number of lots and the potential for parking problems, and feel it is a good option either way. Com. Chen: Said Vice Chair Wong and Com. Giefer covered all the possibilities. Said she was also concerned about the parking situation there, but does not see many options, other than reduce the square footage or to look for other ways to accommodate the parking situation. . Said she could not support the project unless parking can be resolved. Com. Miller: Said he was also concerned about the parking, and agreed with fellow commissioners on that. Also Vice Chair Wong pointed out a very good point, ti-om a functional design, it seems like the interiors are missing some things, such as a foyer, although that it not necessarily the Planning Commissioners' purview to comment on that. Said that if the parking could work, he supported it; but without the parking solution, he would not support it. Chair Saadati: Said he was also concerned about parking, and not certain how it would work. Said it would be difficult to support the project without having enough information regarding parking. Mr. Piasecki: Said that staff could talk with Public Works if it was to be continued for two weeks; the applicant should be asked ifhe is agreeable to that. Vice Chair Wong: Asked if the applicant would consider reducing the living area to accommodate a tandem garage as well and show a plan. Asked if the application could be approved tonight if the applicant is agreeable, and willing to do a tandem garage and reduce the living space. Mr. Piasecki: Confirmed that it could be approved with the stipulation that they incorporate a tandem garage and both the bathroom and the bedroom would presumably have to be eliminated. It could be done with conditions stipulating that the Director of Community Development would have to review it and approve it. Mr. Snow: . Asked that if keeping with the tandem garage concept, do they have to be penalized in reducing the bedroom if they can keep the square footage. Planning Commission Minutes 11 June 2&, 2004 Vice Chair Wong indicated he would agree with the increased FAR to get the tandem garage; Mr. Snow asked if they could work the tandem garage with the staff level and include and keep the third bedroom and square footage of the unit; is that something that could be approved. Vice Chair Wong: . No. Chair Saadati: . That is something that needs to come back and commissioners will review that. Also continuing this for evaluation of the parking; that is another option; at that time you can come back with the other alternative. Vice Chair Wong: Said that the applicant is asking if the Planning Commission will entertain increasing the FAR so that he can fit two parking spaces on the property. Mr. Smith: In the tandem you make a good point, are we asking that it be two covered or asking that two be provided onsite. Vice Chair Wong: Two covered according to the ordinance. Suggested allowing an exception on the driveway for just one, so that you will have three vs. two, four to three. Chair Saadati: One option is to continue with the parking evaluation to be done and bring it back to see how the street parking is going to work out; and the parking affects on the neighborhoods. Other option is to consider tandem parking, with the different FAR. Com. Miller: Not opposed to more FAR, but would not approve it without seeing the building first. Depending on the end result, you could use the FAR in a productive way or should use it in a not so acceptable way. Com. Chen: . Not opposed to increased FAR. Have same concern as Com. Miller. The design is one of our main concerns; if there is a way to resolve the parking situation, with permit parking or parking space along the zone wall, you don't have to change the design; said she would approve a two parking and a parking exception as proposed now. Said she was not opposed to having the design reviewed by the DRC, instead of coming back to the full Planning Commission; the use permit would be approved with the parking exception for one car, uncovered parking, which would be an option. Vice Chair Wong: . What is suggested is two car tandem garage with one in the apron, and if it is approved, go to the DRC vs. the full Planning Commission; which is acceptable. Planning Commission Minutes 12 June 2R, 2ß04 Com. Giefer: Said she was not comfortable increasing the FAR on it or sending it just to the DRC for review; would prefer to provide a parking exception and a smaller home with more green space around it, and with less frontage of the garage on the street, as the design has been presented tonight. Chair Saadati: The majority of commissioners feel that continuing the application for two weeks is appropriate. Mr. GiIIi: Asked how many Planning Commissioners would be supportive of the project if the onstreet parking were possible on Alhambra. Vice Chair Wong: . Said he could not support it, because it would be independent from this project; a concern about it is you can do a permit parking for the residents, but the ordinance says that you need two parking in an enclosed garage. Com. Giefer: Would like clarification because this is a planned area; they don't need to meet Rls. Mr. Piasecki: Said that it was technically correct, they don't need the exception, they can vary; but the Planning Commission still needs to feel comfortable and approve in the context of the planned development. It says in the planned development, you use the parking ordinance as a guideline, not as a strict requirement, so technically they have the ability to request this under the planned development zone. . The effect is the same; if you are worried about parking; you are worried about parking, but procedurally they don't need the exception. Vice Chair Wong: Said he still felt they should have adequate parking in a residential area. Com. Miller: Relative to the previous discussions on parking ratios for higher density projects; where 2.8 per unit was discussed; does this meet the 2.8? Mr. Piasecki: Said it does not; the advantages the one car apron allows for a parking space on the street, that would not occur if you insisted on a 2.8, they would have to do something different. He said if the applicant agreed to continuance, it would allow time to gather more information on both the onStreet parking and whether a tandem can be done, and what the effect would be if he tries to keep the third bedroom, which would address all or most of the Planning Commissioners' concerns. Posed the question to the applicant if they could accept a two week continuance to get more information, the Planning Commission can move on this with all the information; if they cannot, and want a decision tonight, they can render a decision tonight, which might be one of the various options discussed. Planning Commission Minutes 13 June 2&, 2004 Mr. GiIli: The applicant was asking how soon the plans were needed and that will depend on whether or not the Planning Commission would be comfortable with the project, with the Alhambra parking or if staff needs to go through and come up with a new design, because then it might not be possible for two weeks. Com. Giefer: Clarified that the neighborhood comment made to her was that street parking was tight in the neighborhood, but the real issue was people who patronize the businesses on Stevens Creek, which is why moving the parking along the Highway seems to make sense; alleviating the onStreet parking on the specific street would move it to an area where less neighbors are impacted but parking is still available. Com. Chen: . If the parking situation can be resolved, said she would like the design as it is now; if it can be determined whether or not the parking space can be opened up, like on the zone wall, if that is the case, she said she supported the project. Com. Giefer: Asked about the possibility of voting tonight with the condition based on that and bring it back if Public Works determines that it is not feasible. Mr. Piasecki: . Said it was a moot point if there was not a third commissioner to support that position. Chair Saadati: Suggested continuing the item because there were many options. Vice Chair Wong concurred. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to postpone U-2004-07, EXC-2004-05 and ASA-2004-10 to the July 12, 2004 Planning Commission meeting; with the direction that the applicant look into the tandem parking space; wonld give the flexibility if the applicant could work with staff to meet Com. Giefer's concern about green space; and also investigate the parking on Alhambra, to have three vs. two ou the parking. (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Saadati declared a short recess. 3. MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) City of Cupertino Citywide location Amendments to Chapter 19.28 ofthe Cupertino Municipal Code (Rl Ordinance). Continued from June 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled Mr. Gilli presented the staff report: The application is a continuation of the review of the Rl ordinance; many items have been addressed. Reviewed the 12 topics listed and staffs recommendations listed on Page I of the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes 14 June 1R, 1004 Lot Coveral!e: Mr. GiIIi: Lot coverage includes a roof overhang, covered porch, meaning you can have aFAR of up to 45%, but in order to meet the lot coverage you wouldn't be able to have an overhang or porch. Staff recommends allowing an additional 5% lot coverage for overhangs, porches and covered patios and the city of Palo Alto also does that. This would allow single story projects to maximize their FAR. First StOry Setbacks: Mr. GiIIi: On narrow lots, it has been discussed before, staff is recommending for the RI-5 zoning district in Rancho Rinconada, allow all of those lots to have side setbacks on the first floor of five feet; that is in lieu of having some sort of calculation based on the size of the lot and the width of the lot. It is accepted that most of the lots in this zone are of a small size; the only lots that are larger are located where a road curves and causes a pie shaped lot; so in general staff recommends a rule that would make it easier to understand what your setbacks are if you are in Rancho. Side Facinl! Garal!es on Corner Lots: Mr. GiIIi: The recommendation is that the garage itself needs to have a 20 foot setback; that will allow enough room for a driveway apron space; it is important to note that the rest of the house can still be at 12 feet; the entire house doesn't have to be at 20 feet. Said that a 12 foot setback on a side garage would not be sufficient to have a car parked in the driveway; there has to be 20 feet. Vice Chair Wong: Asked if staff called for two cars, tandem. Mr. GiIIi: Said no, it is one 10 by 20 space, 20 feet deep. Said it happens rarely, but if you are the owner you will assume you can park on the 12 feet, which results in overhanging into the sidewalk and causes a code enforcement issue. Mr. GiIIi: The next issue was raised by members of the public. It is a rectangular lot, property line in the back, the Rl has a minimum rear setback of 20 feet, but there is an allowance that the first story can go as close as 10 feet to the rear property line as long as you have enough usable rear yard area. . Said a letter ti-om the neighbors was not needed. The rule states go within 10 feet of the rear setbacks so long as your usable rear yard area is equal to 20 times the lot width, what the usable rear yard area is in this case is the area illustrated, a section of the house that is beyond the 20 foot rear setback, which offsets for the amount that sticks into the 20 foot setback. The resulting heights are a 13 foot wall height, or if it is a gable roof it could have a 20 foot roof peak within 10 feet of the rear property line; and complaints have been received in these cases in the last year. . Complaints include one ti-om a person who thought it shouldn't be used on pie shaped lots. In general staff would not recommend eliminating this regulation; it adds a lot of flexibility on Planning Commission Minutes 15 June 2&, 2004 adding a bedroom or a couple of bedrooms at the back of the house, but what may help with the concerns of neighbors is to have some type of procedure where a neighbor is notified and has a chance to be part of the process. Because this is not in the Council's scope of work, striking this rule in staff's opinion should get authorization from the Council, making a minor change to the rule like having a review process; staff is not certain if that is a significant change and that is up to the Commission. Chair Saadati: Asked how many situations there were and how many neighbors complained. Mr. GiIIi: In the last year and a half, this allowance has been used many times, a part of that is because our rules are built around making it harder to build up; what this rule or allowance allows is a way to get more living area on the ground floor; a lot of people have used that, but at least a dozen per year proposed this and some times it is used, it results in some complaints. Said the complaints were mostly about the mass and height of the extension; in cases where this is done and it is a hip roof, there were no complaints, but if it is a gable roof or a pie shaped lot, you are able to make this a larger encroachment because of the front being narrower; in those cases it is because of the amount of building at the 10 foot rear setback line. Said he conveyed to the people who complained about having a building that close, that there is an accessory structure ordinance that allows a building to be within 3 feet of the rear, but in that case it can only be 7 feet tall; with the accessory structure ordinance you can get closer but it's shorter, and it's not as much mass. Staff recommended keeping this rule because it is a flexible rule; but to address concerns, a review process might be warranted in all cases or in certain cases, but that is up to the Planning Commission. Com. Chen: The mass and bulk look is strictly from the rear view. Even if we provide a review process and provide access for neighbors to get involved during the development process of the whole property, what kind of bases do they have to object to the design if there is no privacy issue. Mr. Gilli: . It would be up to the Commission how it would be looked at; if it were done, I would expect that it would focus only on that issue; it wouldn't look at anything else in the project; and it would be up to a review body to determine if the complaint of the neighbor is reasonable, which is the same as in the current process of two story homes; if a neighbor has a complaint that they don't want a two story there, then it is allowed; but if it is a complaint about can you move this window a little, it is possible. If there was a review, the main issue may result in being height. Mr. GiIIi: The second story has to be 25 feet and it doesn't have any allowance to be closer. Vice Chair Wong: When they do encroach into the 20 foot rear setback, what is staff's position; rather have them encroach and have a one story or have them remodel and have a two story. Mr. GiIIi: It is case by case, depends on where the second story is located; there can be cases and it depends on the height where a tall wall single story wall that is 10 feet away is more looming Planning Commission Minutes 16 June 2&, 2004 than a second story wall that is pushed back a long way. I think if anyone had to choose between a second story at the minimum rear setback of 25 feet or a single story probably would chose the single story, but in a lot of the cases we see, people are able to have a larger rear setback and on the second story. It would be on a case by case basis and that might be a good point to raise to people who complain about the height, is that it is one story. Mr. Piasecki: Said when the rule was put into effect, part of the concept was to get more of the rear yard space accessible to the living area of the home; most likely the indented portion into the 20 foot setback was going to be a bedroom area and not the living area; you could see the area to the right; it is probably going to be off the family room or the kitchen and the idea is where you put your pool, your patio, and you can actually create a cluster around that as opposed to having a straight 20 foot line, and have less of a good relationship of a living area to the outdoor space. Some of the complaints may come as a result of the gable ends; and also may come as a result of differences in grading between lots; because if your neighbor is up 4 feet and they come out as close as 10 feet, that building seems to loom over you even though it is a single story. Com. Miller: The obvious issue where we haven't discussed tbis, is if you have a corner lot you can actually be within 5 feet of your neighbor; depending on where you have the ti-ont and the rear, then the side can be 5 feet from the neighbor and you can have a complete house running, not just a piece of it because all that is required is five feet. Said he agreed with staff, it is a good rule, and allows flexibility for lots that are wide and not so deep and need that flexibility in order to get a decent design from a functional standpoint. Vice Chair Wong: Asked what type of situation would encroach; such as extending a family room or bedroom. Mr. GiIIi: . It is normally adding a bedroom; a lot of times you will have a hallway that ends at a bedroom; what they will do is extend the hallway and add another master at the back or it is normally a bedroom. . Relative to notification, if it is a one story house, there is no mechanism to look at issues of grading, privacy or anything like that. If it is one story, it doesn't have notification. In the R I, for a single story wall height over 20 feet, the second story setbacks have to be met; when the building envelope was added to the ordinance, it made it impossible to have a wall that was more than 20 feet in height that didn't already meet the setbacks of the second story. This was an old rule, it carried over with the building envelope; it's not needed anymore; staff is recommending it be eliminated. With the basements and lightwells, in the action the Commission took in 2003, one of the items was if you had a single story house with a basement you would get an allowance to have one of your lightwells of a larger size be more of a patio; and the number that was agreed upon back then was having a lOx 10, and staff is bringing that back. There were complaints about occurrences where a very tall single story gable was built 5 feet from the side property line; one complaint where it was a combination of this rule and the rear setback allowance, where it is a lot of height and it upset a handful of neighbors. Like the rear setback encroachment allowance, staff believes that allowing a gable end to extend outside of the building envelope is a good rule. In a neighborhood that may have a lot of gable on existing homes; the question may be what is the point where it is just too high. Planning Commission Minutes 17 June 2R, 2004 . In trying to come up with a recommendation for the Planning Commission, staff suggested possibly if it is over 17 feet it would have to have some input ti-om the neighbor; if it is less, hopefully the average resident isn't going to have a concern with it. The 17 foot number came about because that is what the exterior would be for a 16 foot interior and the Commission's straw poll agreed that 16 feet would be the line at which the interior space would be counted as a second story area. This is just an idea that you could still go up to 20 feet which is what the ordinance allows; but if you go over 17, you have to have some input from the neighbor and if you are under 17, as it is now, you don't need to have any type of neighbor input. There is another element to this relative to the ordinance, stating that the gable end has to enclose attic space; and it is possible that it was due to the City Council's concern that high volume space might be converted into second story area; if you had a gable end that had a 20 foot peak you could conceivably slide in a usable second story that could be only 5 feet off the side property line which would violate the side setbacks. By stating it is an attic, doesn't mean the attic itself isn't able to be converted at a later date. With respect to the previous issue about a gable end, it should be allowed and perhaps in other cases it should have some kind of review. If that is done, staff recommends that all reference to having there be attic space be taken out since the real issue is the mass of the wall, not whether it is an attic or high volume. . Vice Chair Wong: . Said he felt the 17 feet was a good idea. You said that you are concerned that if it goes to 20 feet which is the current ordinance, that there is a possibility that at a later point in time the applicant could do a second story; has that ever happened before with a gable roof like this? Mr. GiIIi: . Said it occurred a maximum of 6 times; many of them ended up being the design review exception, the ones on the plan sets don't have that now. Vice Chair Wong: . Asked if they have a high gable roof and instead of having an attic, would they be permitted to have cathedral ceilings in a living room or master bedroom. Mr. GiIIi: That is part of the recommendation; that the Planning Commission look at this rule and decide if 20 feet is too much without having input from the neighbor, whichever way you go on that, it really doesn't matter if it is attic space or high volume. If you think it is too high and certain things need review, that is fine; if you think 20 feet is no problem, either way it doesn't really add anything as far as neighbor protection, as far as privacy protection having it as attic space. That is why the recommendation is to take out that reference and say the gable ends allow to be a certain height. Vice Chair Wong: Asked how in the past it came to 20 feet. Mr. GiIIi: Said he did not have the information; there are many references to 20 feet, recalled an earlier item was if there was wall height over 20 feet, you have to meet the second story setbacks, it could have been from that, but you know that there is a lot of conflicting heights, for example in the zones where you can only have the single story, maximum height is 18 feet. Planning Commission Minutes lR June 1R, 1ßß4 Said in his opinion, it is rules made at different times and not well tied together. Vice Chair Wong: With a 20 foot rule, perceived in the future, it could allow for an easier expansion vs. tearing down the roof and putting on a second story; architecturally they can always have windows jutting out of the roof making it more attractive. . Not certain what the intentions were; do not know why they go 20 foot high on the first story; asked staff if they knew why. Mr. GiIIi: Not sure; there are cases where if you have an existing house that has a gable and it is at 15 feet now and you want to add onto your house and bring the gable up, those are the only times you will see anybody getting close to 20 feet. Com. Miller: . Said he agreed with the recommendation. Mr. Gilli: . The ordinance has a rule that if you have a blank wall over 60 feet in length facing a public street, there must be a window, trellis, or something on it to break up the mass. This regulation has been used only one time in the past five years about a month ago; most of the time you do not have an applicant who proposes a blank wall on the ti-ont; if it is on a corner there could be some cases where you have a blank wall but its always covered by a fence, and we are not going to require a window or trellis on the other side of a fence. In many ways it is not perceived as a regulation that has much effect, staff is recommending it be taken out. Second story decks: The rules for that are in the accessory structures ordinance not in the RI ordinance; these decks have special setbacks and require a public hearing. Many cases we have applicants who are proposing a two story project and they put a deck in and make it meet the required setbacks ofthe second story, not realizing we have rules in the accessory ordinance; what staff is proposing for clarity is to take all those rules and put them in the Rl ordinance. The other issue is the ordinance requires a second story deck to have a public hearing at the Design Review Committee; and based on experience, it seems overkill and we think if the Planning Commission is comfortable with having a lower level of public hearings, or not even a public hearing, but a staff level approval with notification to all the commissioners, (that is how we do our minor modifications now); let the neighbors know about it, and allow to comment; then we will be able to address all the impacts of decks which are just privacy without having to have the extra cost of hearings and extra cost of numerous plans that the applicant has to provide. With issues of privacy, on numerous occasions the Design Review Committee would have a neighbor appear with a privacy concern; and all it would have taken is the applicant, neighbor and staff to sit down and talk about; but the DRC in the past has continued an item to allow the applicant and neighbor to talk, which creates another hearing and another report. Staff would like to explore the concept of having a lower level of review for items that are lower level. On a shed if you want a first story deck, if you want play structures in the back yard, it is in the accessory structure ordinance and that ordinance applies to Rl, R2, therefore it will still be needed, but the rules about second story decks only apply to RI, so it just makes sense to move it. Extension of lel!al non conforminl! buildinl! lines. . This is a case where approval is needed ti-om the neighbor and a legal nonconforming building line is basically a section of the building that does not meet the current setbacks. It may have Planning Commission Minutes 19 June 2R, 2004 . met the setbacks when it was built but it does not now. What this rule allows is to take that nonconforming building line and extend it, expand a room that is already existing; add rooms also, cannot make the setbacks smaller, but also then needs the neighbor's approval. There have been cases where a neighbor has not approved a project that seems fairly innocuous; we have also had cases where a homeowner makes the extension go all the way down the entire property line which in some ways is not in keeping with the intent. Staff recommendation is that you don't need to have neighbor approval; neighbors will still be notified, and they can complain; this is another possibility of a minor administrative approval, but have a limit on how far it can be extended The figure that the Commission had in 2003 was a distance of 15 feet, which is almost enough for a whole room but enough to take a small living room and make it big; or add a bathroom and a bedroom in some cases. Other issue is because it is a legal non-conforming wall, it shouldn't be increased in height if they are going to try to keep the non-conforming setback. If you want a taller wall you need to meet the setback; if you want the non-conforming wall, you have to keep the height that the wall currently is. Said that it could be appealed by the neighbor. Mr. Piasecki: Said that Cupertino has a very significant portion of its housing stock that was acquired through a realignment of boundaries with San Jose, through annexations of Rancho Rinconada, Garden Gate, and Monta Vista and that is why there are some of these legal non- conforming setbacks that do not conform to Cupertino's requirements because they were developed under other jurisdictions. The question is what can be developed that is fair and yet respects the neighbors' rights and allows flexibility without abuse. Vice Chair Wong: . Asked that Old Business be reviewed since there were many good points. Mr. GiIIi: At the last meeting, there was a split on whether or not to keep the setback surcharge or use a daylight plane or building envelope and the terms are used interchangeably, and the commissioners who were comfortable with the setbacks and surcharges wanted to make sure that you could still do that with the increase in the second story area being discussed. . Said what he did instead of trying to draw out a concept, was went through a number of the approved plans and imagined that they added a bedroom in certain locations, and in all cases except for the very small lots, they were able to reach the level of having the larger second story about 50% of the first story and still meet all the setbacks. The small lots: It is more difficult but the Planning Commission was agreeable to not using the surcharge on the narrow lots. Com. Miller: Said it was a good point; the question is they could meet it, but does that severely constrain the design because there is only a very few ways in which they can meet it. Mr. GilIi: It constrains it more, but severely is judgmental; he said it does not, but will definitely be an issue whereas with the rule as it is now, it is rare that a designer is going to bump up against the surcharge because the second story is only allowed to be 35%. . Instead of going with a surcharge, the Planning Commission could institute a building envelope or daylight plane on the second story, if done to try to mitigate the increase in the Planning Commission Minutes 20 June 28, 2004 . second story area, then it is within the scope of work; part of the problem is the City Council did not allow in the scope of work changes to the single story building envelope, so the idea put forward is a stack envelope which is shown on Exhibit A, which the Commission may want to consider. With second story wall offsets, two of the commissioners wanted to widen how much the minimum offset is; it is currently 6 feet and the idea was to widen it to 8 feet, but it is a split at this point and the Commission may want to see if a majority opinion can be reached. A total of 57 surveys have been received since the deadline; one was received late last week that is not reflected in the report. They were not opened or processed since the deadline passed. Staff's recommendation is unless you believe that the additional surveys are going to effect any of your decision making in a significant way that we can continue on the process we are on now; because having to go thru and process the surveys is going to take time. Com. Giefer: Regarding the surveys, said there was a good sample size and would doubt that the late surveys would change that. However, she recommended adding the comments to those already received. Vice Chair Wong: Asked for an illustration of a side view of 6 feet vs. 8 feet on the second story offset. Mr. GilIi: . Referred to the Santa Clara project plans of a second floor bathroom with side elevations of almost 9 feet; sheet A3 in the plan set illustrated a popout on the right elevation. Vice Chair Wong: Second question is page 3-7, you provide some really good examples, explain again examples 2,3 and 4. Is 2, 3 and 4 our current ordinance? Mr. GiIIi: The first one is what the building envelope would look like on a normal size lot, over 6,000 square feet; with meeting the side setbacks but not having any surcharge; there is the potential for a two story wall plane on one side, because the first story setbacks are 5 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other; when going to 3 and 4, there are two options available with the surcharge. One can put all 5 feet on one side, 2-112 feet on either side or any other split, these are the minimum amounts you have to put on the side. Only 3 and 4 would show something that could be our ordinance. Reason for the surcharge is to provide more space between the second floor and a neighbor; and it was intended to be in a flexible way to place the extra setback wherever you needed to based on your design, based on where the interior rooms are located; the stairs and so on. Instead of saying you have to have a 15 foot setback on one side and lOon the other, you could make it 12-112 on both. Com. Miller: . Asked for the progress on someone from Palo Alto speaking with the Planning Commission. Mr. Gilli: Staff from Palo Alto is scheduled to visit in August. . At the next meeting, discussion is slated for design review on what is reviewed, who does the review, and what the tools are; then following that on the 26th the design review topic will be Planning Commission Minutes 21 June 2&, 2004 finalized; August 9th staff will present a summary of all the changes not in an ordinance form at that point, but in a list of all the changes, and the Commission can make sure it has everything they want; then it is conceivable that the Commission can vote on the entire amendment language on the 23'd. It can be pushed back in order to have the Palo Alto presentation and the Council can have their meeting start in either September or October; and hopefully have the new rules in effect prior to the new year. Vice Chair Wong: . Another topic under Old Business is high volume ceiling; we did discuss about the staircase that you would come back with a typical staircase so it wouldn't be double counted, could it be brought up at the next meeting. When we talk about high volume ceiling, if it includes inside a foyer and it has a round staircase, you would just minus whatever number determined for the Planning Commission and then double count for high ceilings, let's say that in a living room if you want a high volume ceiling, that would also be double counted. Mr. GiIIi: Said he looked at how much space typical stairs would need and tried to round it off. In most cases it will work with the amount of 50 square feet. Stairs are typically less than 4 feet wide, although in some cases they are wider with a normal span of about 16; it won't completely cover it so you can increase that number, the idea was to have a ballpark. It would be an area that would not be double counted, not counted as a second story area. . The ceiling would have to be over 16 feet because the commissioners were in agreement for having the double counting starting at 16. . Said all the recommendations were made in the staff report including the issue of using a stacked envelope, having a second story building envelope, also including asking for Council authorization to try to use the concept of the Palo Alto plane in lieu of other rules that aren't in the scope of work and also whether or not the Planning Commission wants to process any of the late surveys or in what form. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive: Strongly support keeping the RI intact and tightening it up; having been in Rancho and having to annex to Cupertino to attempt to protect the neighborhood ti-om over-building and monster homes, keeping Rl intact as much as possible is recommended. She said that the home next to hers is a 3500 square foot home that was built pre-annexation; two stories with no setback; and she nor her neighbor cannot open their front doors, and their kitchen window looks into her front door; they are constantly having to keep their blinds shut. Said there was a demolition about 3 weeks ago on the street behind her house; it came to their awareness that the back construction site of the home appeared to be very close to the back fence, and after asking staff exactly what was going on, it appeared that the home was being constructed 10 feet behind the property line. Said to the best of her knowledge, she did not think it was valid in Cupertino, there had to be a 20 foot setback and at the time Rancho annexed, it was 20 feet. There is a piece in Section 19.28.060 where it talks about the rear setback being 20 feet; there is a piece of very vague wording which was being discussed with rear yard setbacks being brought down to 10 feet. I believe that this piece of wording was put into deal with the issue of pie shaped lots of which my neighborhood Rancho has many. I think this piece of sentences needs to be tightened up for what intent it was supposed to be. Planning Commission Minutes 22 June 2&, 2004 . Said she was not certain of the meaning or how it got into the building code; it was not likely there at the time that Rancho annexed because there would have been discussion about it, since people would have been concerned why it was there, and what it meant. A home was built behind Mr. J. Hughes on a pie shaped lot in Cupertino near Monta Vista that is very upsetting to him, within 10 feet of the back of his property on a rise. She said she felt he had the right to complain about the unusual building pattern and have some recourse from the city to deal with the issue, particularly since having a 10 foot setback in a neighborhood such as Rancho is very unusual, most 1500 homes there have a normal 20 to 40 foot setback. Said if a home was being built behind them that was only 10 feet, she and her husband would complain vigorously in whatever recourse they had. Said it is paramount that if this type of building is continuing in the city as it appears to be, the neighbors have the right to complain about it and have something done about it. Whether this rule can be applied to square rectangular lots vs. pie shaped lots, the history of this wording that has appeared in the building code should be examined, and find out what the true nature or why it was even put in there. Recommend that the neighbors be allowed to complain about the 10 foot setback; the wording be tightened up and an examination as to why this type of building is going on in neighborhoods with standard back yards of20 feet where the lots are less than 5,000 and 6,000 square feet. . Vice Chair Wong: Asked Ms. Griffin is she supported 5 feet on each side on the side setbacks in Rancho, since the lots are so narrow. Ms. Griffin: Said she understood that it had been 5 feet and 5 feet at the point where annexed because there was a discussion among the group of annexation into Cupertino that they need not worry because the lots were so narrow that 5 feet would be adequate. . Also since you were requiring the second story setback for the first time, you would not have homes with a vertical run of 35 feet so it seemed that there was 5 feet. Said she was concerned with Loree, and whether that part of Rancho was being considered. . Said she was confused about the RI-5 and asked for clarification. Mr. GiIIi: The RI-5 is adequately covered; all the small lots in Rancho in the area on Loree estates where the lots are about 10,000 that is RI-1O zone; so it wouldn't apply to them. Ms. Griffin: Said her main concern is the rear setback should be at least 20 feet; Loree should stay at 10 and 10 which it is not currently. Said she would prefer ifthere were Rls; and have one story with a 20 foot setback and then the regular two story. Mr. Gilli presented a matrix of issues for comment: Com. Giefer: With basements, and the 10 by 10 lightwell; how is that going to work with small lots. Mr. GiIIi: . On small lots it will be more difficult because the lightwells will still have certain setbacks; lightwell has a rear setback of 10 feet and side setback of 5 feet, so if it turns out that the way Planning Commission Minutes 2~ June 1R, 1004 they are doing their building they don't have room for a 10 foot depth, they may not get 10 feet, they may get 8 or 9 feet; but on normal size lots it shouldn't be an issue. Com. Giefer: Have people on smaller lots put in basements? Mr. GiIIi: . Yes, although there is no correlation between the size of the lot and whether or not they are more likely to have basements, many people have been doing it. Said he felt if there was a lot over 10,000, it would not be done; he said he has seen many cases of it between 5,000 and 10,000. Summary of Outcome of Matrix of Issues Vice Chair Wong: Regarding all the new business items I through 10, I support them all Lot Covera!!e 45% Vice Chair Wong: yes Com. Giefer: yes Com. Chen: agree Com. Miller: agree Chair Saadati: agree First stOry side setbacks !!ara!!e 20 feet Vice Chair Wong: yes Com. Giefer: yes Com. Chen: yes Com. Miller: yes Chair Saadati: yes Rear setback reductions Director's annroval Vice Chair Wong: yes Com. Giefer: need to think about more Com. Chen: yes Com. Miller: yes Chair Saadati: yes Eliminate second stOry setback for tall first stOry walls Vice Chair Wong: yes Com. Giefer: yes Com. Chen: yes Com. Miller: yes Chair Saadati: yes Li!!ht well - allow a lar!!er IiI!ht well Vice Chair Wong: accept that Com. Giefer: No because of smaller lots Com. Chen: yes Com. Miller: yes Chair Saadati: yes Planning Commission Minutes 24 June 2R, 2Oß4 Buildin!! envelooe havin!! a !!able and not have to be attic but over a certain hei!!ht have to !!et some tyoe of anoroval Vice Chair Wong: yes Com. Giefer: yes Com. Chen: yes Com. Miller: yes Chair Saadati: yes Eliminate re!!ulation that requires certain features on blank walls Vice Chair Wong: yes Com. Giefer: yes Com. Chen: yes Com. Miller: yes Chair Saadati: yes Move the deck rules Director's approval Vice Chair Wong: yes Com. Giefer: yes Com. Chen: yes Com. Miller: yes Chair Saadati: yes into R1 instead of a public hearin!!. make it a minor approval. Extension of le!!al non-conformin!! buildin!! lines: not have nei!!hbor approval: have a limited lenl!:th. no heil!:ht increase and approval bv the Director Vice Chair Wong: accept that Com. Giefer: abstain for now; not sure Com. Chen: yes Com. Miller: yes Chair Saadati: yes Havin!! a stacked envelope instead of a surchar!!e: what the commission will need to do is fil!:ure out which stacked envelope if anv of the ones presented Vice Chair Wong: Supports No.2. Com. Giefer: same as Com. Chen (omit - until we hear from Palo Alto on the pros and cons, and how that would be without design review, I would wait on that one) Com. Chen: Not want stacked envelope; would prefer surcharge, option 4 which provides some flexibility to the design Com. Miller: Support that; support no surcharge Chair Saadati: No.4 To request that the City Council authorize the Plannin!! Commission to consider usinl!: a davli!!ht plane similar to Palo Alto in lieu of other re!!ulations Vice Chair Wong: do support it, but would hope that we can get it before August. Com. Giefer: wait on that until we hear from Palo Alto Com. Chen: no Com. Miller: yes Chair Saadati: no Planning Commission Minutes 25 June 2R, 2004 What to do about late survevs (just !!et commeuts) Vice Chair Wong: agree with Com. Giefer Com. Giefer: consider comments only Com. Chen: No to just getting comments; process the surveys; surveys and hearings are providing venue to the public to provide their input; the late surveys are not following the rules but the reason behind the survey is to collect public input; support reviewing all the surveys and adding them to the existing results Com. Miller: support Com. Giefer's suggestion Chair Saadati: comments only Vice Chair Wong: Regarding Ms. Griffin's concerns, what does staff recommend: Mr. GiIIi: Said he encouraged Ms. Griffin to attend the meeting and speak out, and talk to other people about the same issues. Said that if it happened in her immediate neighborhood instead of a few houses down, he would suggest what he would do in the same situation, and that is to try to weigh the impact of the single story being only 10 feet away with the potential impact if it is a two story, and see which would be preferable; He said he felt everyone would chose neither, but what we are going to end up with is a method to make it so that issues that are clearly too massive, may be able to be addressed. In most cases if somebody is going to propose a use of this rule, and it is in keeping with the rest of the house, said he would not imagine that it would be denied. Vice Chair Wong: Said it was a long process and they could change their minds before the final tentative draft based on information received. This is just the beginning, and once the Planning Commission makes a recommendation it could also change again after it goes to City Council. . Expressed appreciation to the speakers coming to the meeting to provide input and also to his colleagues for keeping an open mind. Relative to the daylight plane said he would also like a representative to come. Com. Miller: . Said that relative to Ms. Griffin's comments, it appears that they are allowing some flexibility in the rear setback, but none in the front setback. In the front setback there is the 20 foot setback; and there is the street in between and there may be potential, depending on the situation for more flexibility on a front setback than there is on a rear setback, which will back up to a house in the front setback. Mr. GiIIi: There is one allowance that if you have a curved driveway and a side facing garage, there are some areas similar to the project reviewed earlier, where having a smaller ti-ont setback, it was not out of place, but then there are a lot of neighborhoods that when they were developed they were exactly the same house and had exactly the same setback, so this could be an issue of a neighborhood plan that allows that. Com. Miller: There is some flexibility and it is looked at on a case by case basis. Planning Commission Minutes 26 June 2&, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: I think now there isn't but potentially if you do a neighborhood plan you might be able to sculpt a particular design based on what the characteristics are in the neighborhood, but right now it is a standard 20 feet and 15 if you have curved driveways Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Chen, to continue Application MCA-2003-02 to the July 12,2004 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS 4. Consider hillside zoning designation for property at 21949 Lindy Lane. Earlier in the meeting, the item was continued to the July 12, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: Com. Chen reported the meeting was cancelled. Housinl! Commission: Com. Giefer reported no meeting was scheduled since the last Planning Commission meeting. Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners: Com. Miller reported: . The Teen Commission was working with the Safety Commission to improve traffic at one of the high schools; Report on the Library and Sister City partnership; Library may have to close Sundays and Mondays if the city does not get sufficient funding; Grand opening for the library is the 29th of October; Due to budget cuts, possibility of canceling the DARE program, cutting support for festivals, cutting a case worker at the senior center; Discussion about CCC initiatives; Discussion about the new park on corner of Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard which has been named the Cali Mill Plaza; . Fine Arts suggested a tax on projects coming into town; . Portal Park has been closed off for through access which is inconvenient for citizens; . Statistics given on bike and car accidents. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Piasecki reported: Cali Mill Plaza dedication is planned for July 24th Written report submitted. OTHER: Following a brief discussion, there was consensus to schedule a study session on August 3, 2004, at 5 p.m. to discuss process, procedures, how the Planning Commission works together, and expectations from staff.